tv Washington Journal CSPAN August 3, 2010 7:00am-10:00am EDT
host: regarding congressional ethics in the 2010 election, what you think of these cases coming to light and what affect do you think it will have on the election in november? for republicans, 202-737-0001. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. you can also send us a message through quittetwitter, twitter.- spanwj. if you want to send us an e- mail, the address is journal@c- span.org. in "roll call," this morning, " maxine waters vowed monday to go against the allegations that she had broken house rules in a rare
public trial." jennifer yakman joins us this morning with more. caller: thank you for having me. host: charges have been leveled. where do we go from here? caller: the ethics committee announced yesterday that congressman waters will face an ethics trial. they did not detail what the charges would be. in the past we know that the committee has been investigating the cause of reform and since 2009, taking a look at her relationship with a bank that receives about $12 million -- received about $12 million in federal bailout funds. her husband was on the board through 2008, owning about
$200,000 in stock in the company at the time that she arranged this meeting. >> an investigative subcommittee found substantial reason to believe that she had broken house rules. what rules are we talking about? >> the committee did not specify -- caller: 5 the committee did not specify, but a somewhat independent body is looking at recommendations to the house ethics committee. in a report released yesterday they suggest that the congresswoman may have used her influence for personal gain, will 23, members are not supposed to use their position for any personal benefit. she denied it. she says she has not used her position for any kind of game or to influence anyone in any way.
>> this comes on the heels of the charges leveled last week against representative charlie rangel. what is the difference between these cases and how they will proceed? >> there are slight differences. congressman rangel, from new york, will face an ethics trial likely in september. that trial will take place first, the wheels are already in motion. a special subcommittee met last week to formally charge him. he has 13 counts of violating house rules with a number of allegations against him. but the central one is that he used his office and official funds to solicit a city college of new york center named in his honor. in both cases there will be a special subcommittee with four democrats and four republicans,
they will sit as the judge and jury. in those cases they will be able to bring evidence like a trial. it will be observed for a couple of days or even a couple of weeks, the subcommittee will decide if they are guilty or innocent. if either lawmaker is found culpable, the entire committee will decide upon it punishment and the house committee will vote on any kind of sanction. host: you can read more about the upcoming proceedings with regards to representative maxine waters in today's issue of "roll call." thank you for being on the program this morning. caller: thank you for having me. host: we will start taking your
calls. the first one comes from rockville, md. caller: good morning. good morning to you and your guests. i have no favoritism towards charlie rangel and maxine waters, but this is the deal, the bank where her husband was on the board about $12 million in tarp funds. that money has not been paid back. all they have to do a show where the money went. i understand that they are very powerful individuals, however this is all more the reason for electioneering politics and grandstanding. congress is in recess anyways. they might as well just stay away and give us a break. this is ridiculous.
charles rangel should know better. she should know better. i have no more doggone sympathy for them because they are black and i am black. god bless the demonstration today for the black farmers. give us that money. thank you. host: washington, d.c., republican line. caller: it is inspiring to hear another black man or woman, a democrat, agree with what the last caller said. maxine waters is going to suddenly say that it is racism. the thing of it is, it has nothing to do with race. it just so happens that two people that happened to be black were caught doing something wrong. okay? last year or the year before it was cunningham, who is in jail
now, the representative from california. he was a war hero. nobody was screaming that people were doing this because he was white. the constant drumbeat of screening racism, what will happen is if there is true lie'' -- true racism, how can you tell the difference? host: i and the front page of "the new york times, "the capital is buzzing with ethics. indiscretions by members of congress. the house ethics committee has come under fire for failing to hold lawmakers accountable in previous investigations." the analysis goes on to say, "as a result, washington has suddenly become fixated on
ethics issues, including the continued investigation of john ensign, republican from nevada, who was accused of improperly intervening between regulators on behalf of an aide to his wife had an affair with the senator. this is an era of higher scrutiny and the need to be more careful about what they do." back to the phones, fort lauderdale, democratic line. welcome to the program. caller: they all do it. congressmen, senators, go to a library. take-out a book. it is called "how to buy a senator." is about elizabeth dole and bob dole and how they became multimillionaires be legally --
illegally. host: will this be a factor in how you vote in november? caller: i am sure that they'll do it. i do not know who i will vote for. host: republican line. caller: the dishonest exploitation of power for personal gain, i believe that describes maxine waters. this woman has been an embarrassment to the house of representatives for a long time. she supports castro and hugo chavez. she is a closet commie. host: she is not being brought up on charges on dealings with castro. caller: i know that. but she should have been a long time ago.
host: stephen, pa., concerning congressional ethics and the election in 2010, what are your thoughts? caller: one of the earlier callers talked about term limits. i used to think that they would be something that would be necessary, but i have come to realize the need to have term limits already, it is called the ballot. what we need is educated voters to pay attention to the issues and how your representatives stand on them, not listen to the political machine, republican or democrat. it is a big responsibility to be a voter in this country and it should be treated as such. we have to do it right. host: who is your representative in pennsylvania?
caller: i cannot remember his name right now. you caught me off-guard. host: that is ok. caller: upper marlboro, maryland, go ahead -- host: upper marlboro, maryland, go ahead. caller: the gentleman from texas, a couple of callers back, it is typical of republicans and conservatives. you kind of stole my thunder, i was going to bring up the example of the republican senator who is being investigated by the justice department. host: john ensign of nevada? caller: exactly. through the entire shenanigans with charlie rangel banned the
congresswoman, i am really disappointed. they could not happen that a worse time. congress is that a very low opinion in the country. i am with nancy pelosi, cleaning the swamp. you know, i love charlie rangel. i love maxine waters. i really do. but if there's anything there, have the trial if you have got to have the trial. just like the last situation a week ago where everyone jump to conclusions about this lady that they hung out there to dry, give them a chance to defend themselves. if they are guilty, they have got to go. host: when you go to the polls in november, how your
representative supports or does not support representative waters, will that be a factor in how you vote? caller: know, and i will tell you why. i think that might congress lady, don edwards, -- don of edwards, -- donna edwards, she has done a remarkable job on issues that are very rare -- very important to the democratic party as a whole. she has been very poor ways. as a matter of fact, she has been part of the progressive conference -- i mean caucus, sorry, i am nervous. she is part of a hard-working group of the progressive caucus. but that is a great question. as democrats we have to get out and vote.
this is the most important vote we will take in a generation, this midterm election. host: dennis, thank you, we will cut you off and move on. in "the boston globe," this morning, "barney frank urged maxine waters to avoid any dealings with the boston-based bank because ever husband owning stock in it. but the democratic congresswoman did not heed his warnings and now faces a possible trial over a conflict of interest." back to the phones, washington, d.c., john. caller: thank you for having me. about the congressional ethics conversation and the 2010
election, this election for congress will be shaky this year. congress is in the reads these days, we will have trouble with that. all of these people trying to run, as i understand it, when you are running for these positions in government you must bring to the table what you are going to believe. am i right? make them be reasonable. congress right now, they are not getting much done. host: it will have an effect on how you vote in november? caller: of course it will. you need to know that when you are with the government, you need the most top-notch people.
that is why i agree with the caller, nancy pelosi, if you want to have a trial, have a trial. do what you are supposed to do. host: rick, toledo, ohio, go ahead. caller: on congressional ethics in 2010, i would like to say that there are no ethics anymore in the united states. democrats and republicans have forgotten the meaning of and probably do not even know how to spell the word. i will be voting independent. democrats and republicans have not had ethics for at least two decades. host: why do you feel that ethics has become an independent thing and it is not there in the democrats or republicans? caller: there is only one independent in congress that i know of that has any ethics, it
is bernie sanders from vermont. when you look at ohio and the surrounding states, none of them have it any ethics. all they care about is their political agenda. ethics does not enter into it at all. host: more from the analysis i am "the new york times" this morning. -- analysis by an "the new york times" this morning -- analysis in "the new york times" this morning. "the accusations against all three lawmakers hang in large part on the question of whether the actions they took came in the course of a normal professional duties or constituted personal favors that they have an influence, for these appeared to have been influenced by money or other factors. in their defense, mr. rangel and ms. waters, mr. ensign, they
rely on similar arguments. mr. ensign contended, for instance, that he had always been a supporter of the nevada airline, allegiant air, and an electric utility,n nv energy. investigators are examining whether he may have tried to hush up his affair by inappropriately helping his mistress's husband lobby federal agencies on behalf of those companies." texas, democratic line, go ahead. caller: i am calling about the ethics issue. host: yes. caller: it seems that there is a presumption of innocence. everyone speaks as if these people have been found guilty. this is the political season. i feel that this is all political.
maxine waters and charlie rangel has said that they have not done anything. i just feel that this is just a way to make them step del by going through these hearings. host: if this was not an election year bell like you do not think that much attention would be paid -- election year, you do not think that much attention will be paid? caller: you have two black congress people. i remember when nancy pelosi said she would drain the swamp. i think that this is all political. now she has to drain the swamp. it is all political and happens to be these two african american congress people who have been
there for years. " -- host: also a white republican senator from nevada. caller: i think he has the presumption of innocence as well. i did not say that he does not. host: weatherford, texas, go ahead. caller: it has nothing to do with black-and-white. these people lied to get elected, they lied when they got there. they're the worst ethical people i have seen. the tea party, they talk about big government, hating it, but they sure are in a big hurry to get to washington. john cornyn will not get my vote. host: why not? caller: i do not believe in anything he stands for. host: are you concerned about his ethics? caller: cuff i just told you that none of them have ethics. they lied to get in tough and
they lied to keep their jobs. term limits, they make these backroom shady deals with these people and then have time to come up with the deals that they made. host: in "politico," this morning, "no deal, two trials as the elections approach." mullah island, new york, matt, you are on. caller: there are no ethics left in washington. it is just more of the same. these accusations against charlie rangel and maxine waters are just the election ploys. nothing more than that. host: another caller mentioned something similar. you say that this would not be a factor of this was not an election year? caller: absolutely.
as far as i am concerned, charlie rangel is a war hero and has done more for the country than most of the other people in congress who are only sitting around for a paycheck. that is what i feel about it. host of district heights, md., you are on. caller: i will be the fifth caller who said that there are no ethics in washington at all. none. nancy pelosi, excuse me, is a joke. when they tried to bring impeachment against george bush for going against the constitution, she said that it is off the table. all of a sudden she will drain the swamp? that is a joke. in the fifth person calling in, the entire administration -- the president talking to the disabled veterans, he should have been talking about bringing
those charges of. those fellows in those positions dealing with ethics and the constitution, it is sad. i am to the point where i will love boat that all. they are all liars -- i will love vote at all. they are all liars. i am so glad that i am the fifth caller that recognizes that there are no ethics between republicans and democrats. nancy pelosi is leading the band. host: we got this headline this morning, from " washington times -- from "of the washington times," they are talking about elena kagan and the justice sonia sotomayor, group would
support of nine republicans -- who soared through with nine republicans. or will republicans launched a losing battle as they did with the second nominee of george bush"? that is "the washington post" talking about the numbers game for the elena kagan confirmation vote. if you want to keep tabs on what is happening with that confirmation, you can go to our website, we have a special hub, c-span/kagan. you can watch her previous appearances and coverage of confirmation hearings, you can see if your senator has announced how he or she will vote for the tally. dsthe access has additional lins
and more. that is c-span.org/kagan. next up is new york, new york, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? there are a few things. one, we need to look at our history as a nation. ethics is a funny thing when it comes to hamiltonian democracy. the government decided that a select few all family makes the decision. [unintelligible] ethics the main driving force in washington in our history? under clinton he was trading positions for support. until money is separated out of the picture and an equal playing
field is given to all people, they have a set amount of money to run and that is an issue that they do not have to placate until there is such a time that we expect this situation. i have to agree with the other callers as well. until reform takes place, we will have these issues. i would like to say that we always had problems with charlie rangel since the 1980's when times were really rough. in fact, we looked down upon the charlie rangel because he was not doing enough for the community during those difficult times. host: next is philadelphia, pa., on a line for democrats. caller: the morning, i am a first-time caller, this is the first -- good morning, i am a first-time caller, this is the
first time i have gotten through. c-span, you are bordering on mimicking box. i cannot tell you everything about the deal with charlie rangel. but with maxine waters, allowed the trial to go forward before you start asking for opinions and of ramping up rage against the american people. the deal with maxine waters was that in september of 2008, when george bush started handing out money to the banks, bank false and never allocated any money to help of black banks -- henry paulson never allocated any money to help the black banks. maxine waters made sure that the national black bank association was included. her husband had been on the board for 25 years at banc one, they had received no money. she fought to make sure that
money was allocated to go to the black banks. you are not reporting any of this. you are allowing the road -- the public to run rampant. this is surely sure rob all over again. it is always good to see you but it has become conspicuous that the only time i see your face is what they have something they think of a black person. then they put you on. have a good day america. host: i am sure that that has nothing to do with the way that they schedule my appearances on this program. joe, you are on "washington journal." caller: there is nothing new under the sun. i would be the eighth caller to concur that there are no ethics in congress. host: when you go to the polls in november, will affect how you vote? caller: i will get to that in one quick second.
congress is a microcosm of society itself. the mafia calls and getting your feet wet -- your beak wet. is the old adage, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. these individuals have been in for an extended period of time. the longer they are in power, the wetter their beak gets. it is a microcosm of society. i see it in business every day. everyone takes care of themselves through malfeasance. i have done over the years from conservative republican to democrat -- i voted for obama, an individual with so much potential who has failed, to an independent, and i have no idea
what i will do. in congress is business as usual. thank you. host: in "the new york post," "james clybourn of south carolina says that charlie rangel should admit wrongdoing to settle the violations from the house committee. "i think that charlie rangel made it very clear in the discussion that i had with him that he was willing to stipulate to all the sworn testimony that was made regarding these 13 allegations," he told msnbc." as reported in "the new york post" this morning. republican line, pennsylvania, good morning. caller: i was in new york city when charlie rangel defeated
clayton powell. they did the same thing to clayton powell. it was frivolous, but they got him out by saying that he called a black woman named bag woman. everyone in the community knew who she was. charlie should have remembered this, because they are doing the same thing to him. cuff nancy pelosi -- nancy the lozi cannot be a friend, i am sure that their enemies -- nancy pelosi cannot be a friend, i am sure that they are enemies. charlie should have gotten the hang from there. we were coming after him. i hope that one day we can find out who are the ones that initiated that. female lose the congress seat, but he will -- he may lose the congress seat, but he will not
lose in getting his company offices in harlem. his mother did not want him to be black so they went east. i thought that he was indian, glad to find out you are black. take care. caller: -- host: sonya, you're on the air. caller: this is my first time calling in. it is suspicious that this is coming up around election time. these two will not step down. i feel that there is a presumption of innocence. everyone in the media has already tried them and convicted them. i think it is all political, it is what the republicans do.
everything is about politics. i want them to stand their ground and go through the process. in the end i feel that nothing will be found. host: why do you say that this is just something the republicans do m of -- that republicans do? caller: everything that they say about the president, they say that he is wrong. whether it was health care, whether it was the financial reform, whatever it is, it has all been turned into propaganda against the president. they just continue to stay on the same beat, over and over, until the poll numbers started
to reflect what they were saying. host: we will leave it there. we got this message from twitter, "these are small crimes in the grand scheme. gop policies to steal from working people are capital offenses. pay attention." atlanta, georgia, go ahead. caller: it is nice to talk to you. i think that our country is going to hell in a handbasket. i feel that there are no ethics on the side of either party. i do not know how they look at themselves in the mirror every night. the reason nothing is getting better in this country comes from the top and goes all the way down. in washington they have spent
more time trying to get reelected and doing special favors, how in the world can they concentrate on doing the people's business? therefore we are all hurting. this issue of black and white, i am black and as far as anyone that goes to washington and does similar things that i see as far as mr. rangel and ms. waters, i think that we need to wake up and realize that our founding fathers gave a lot to this country and it seems that has been well for gotten. host: will this situation affect the way that you vote in november? caller: no, it will not. regardless of whether or not the person is a democrat or a republican, or an independent, it is the person and how they present themselves.
i am especially impressed with the lady from maryland. this is her first time in congress. i have heard her at various town hall meetings. i cannot remember her name. host: donna edwards? caller: yes, i am impressed with her. not because she is black, i do not care your color. but the people in congress need to realize that we are paying their salaries. host: in "the new york daily news," "president obama is not's and charlie rangel under the bus, this by suggesting that he and his career with dignity -- despite suggesting that he and his career with dignity.
democrats fear --that the fightn the charges will be an open wound in the november elections. "my hope is that he will end his career with dignity and i hope that that happens," that is what obama told cbs over the weekend." good morning. caller: i believe that there is no ethics in congress anymore. i am disappointed. our politicians are elected to serve, not to be served. if you or i did these kinds of things, our reputation would be destroyed. our careers would be over. i just feel that the governor of arizona seems to appear at this
time to be the only patriot in the u.s. that i can see that is listening to the constituents. host: will this affect how you vote in november? caller: certainly. i hope that we have good men and women willing to run. it has become so corrupt. it is disappointing daily. people need to find a good news source and realize what is going on. host: timothy geithner wrote an op-ed, "the recession that began in late 2007 was extraordinarily severe but the actions that we took at the beginning helped to arrest a free fall and put the economy on the road to recovery. he goes on to say that while the
economy has a ways to go before reaching its full potential, large parts of the private sector continued to strengthen. business investment and consumption, the key to private demand, are getting better and stronger than last year and even last quarter. business capital, spending increases, they are going up at a solid rate." georgia, gloria, atlanta, go ahead. caller: i have heard a lot of the comments this morning. i hear -- i feel that mr. rangel and ms. waters have the right to defend themselves. we need to leave it alone. what the media does is get in on the tail and the things in stark the public giving their opinion
when they have small minds. it is about our president, they do not want him to succeed. but he will. i will vote for the democrats. it does not matter, you know, about the ethics, the media just wants something to tell none. they just want to be out in the public saying, you know, we are so great. when they come to the polls, they make their own selections. so many people are not even wasting their time voting for president obama. i have not voted in the polls, but i support him 100%. host: who is running for congress in your district? caller: i support him also.
i support congressman david scott. i will always support him because he is out here doing something for the people. he is holding job fairs. there were so, so many people there looking for jobs. host: we received a message through twitter, "rental -- charlie rangel and maxine waters are no more corrupt than anyone else in congress, this is merely a distraction." "officials see an end in sight in the gulf coast, bp engineers delayed until today a test that could permanently plugging the well. they had planned to test it on monday night, slowly injecting oil and mud into a four story
projector on top of the well." livingston, new jersey, online for republicans. go ahead. caller: good morning. maxine waters, i do not know that one violation makes a big deal. charlie rangel has 13 violations that they have found. i believe that where there is smoke, there's fire. the only thing that makes me angry is that if he is found guilty, he will get a smack on the wrist, get his attention, then come back as a lobbyist. if someone like me had a similar violation, we would go to jail. even if he has done well for the community, it should not take away from the fact that he has done something wrong.
no different from anyone else looking to survive, he should be convicted if found guilty. host: who is your representative there? caller: i am not sure. host: will you go to the polls in november? when you find out, would make a difference in who you vote for? caller: i will vote republican because i feel the democrats have too much power. i believe that the people that voted for obama voted for someone new and fresh, hoping that he would bring something new to the game. he is no different from the other guys. letting everyone see what is going on, it does not occur. i believe that i have to vote republican to take the power from the democrats. host: thank you to all the callers that participated in this segment. in "the chicago tribune, ""
options out. >> this month is the anniversary of the first gulf war. look back at the key players and events that became desert storm online at the season and video library. free, every program since 1987. watch what you want when you want. >> c-span programming. politics, books, history, available any time on c-span radio in the washington baltimore area on 90.1 fm, nationwide on satellite radio on channel 132, on line around the world at c-span.org, and now listen to c-span radio on your phone. through a partnership with audio now, c-span radio is available any time, 202-626- 8888. it is free but check with your phone provider for any additional charges.
c-span radio now available on your phone. every weekend in august, "book tv," returns, c. christopher hichens next weekend. later in the month, the harlem book festival, the annual meeting of historians and librarians, and freedom fest, on c-span 2. for the full listing, go to booktv.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we will be talking about the withdrawal of troops from iraq and the announcement that the president made yesterday with richard weitz of the hudson institute. first we want to check in with jane in iraq this morning with "the christian science monitor." caller: thank you. host: support waning for the
war, lowest since taking office according to the report. how are iraqis responding to the president's announcement? caller: there is nothing much new here in the streets of baghdad. u.s. officials here frankly take every opportunity to say they are on track in their leaving. the fear is that there is so much uncertainty about what will happen when the troops drawdown. $50,000 by the end of this month. host: "the wall street journal ," president obama declared an end to the war on august 31, it
does not mean the end to the american commitment in iraq." what do the iraqis expect to see as far as support in non-combat operations? caller: certainly, what they would like to see is the commitment that the u.s. will not abandon them. it is a given that the iraqis do not want to see u.s. soldiers in their streets, no one does. but they also do not want to see the u.s. cut and run. there is a certain fear about what happens after they leave. we are seeing a spike in violence. might not be a sustainable trend, but what has been going on today with five policemen were killed, placing it in a major neighborhood, possibly
even more uncertain and unsettled. host: do you get the feeling that they're concerned not only about the withdrawal of u.s. troops but also about the functioning of things happening outside of the elliptical grid? supply of goods and services, that kind of thing? caller: absolutely. that is perhaps even more of a preoccupation and the violence going on -- than the violence going on. many people only have a few hours of electricity each day. so many people do not have jobs. five months after the polls, they still do not have a government. a lot of the things that they have from f f -- they have been promised have not panned out
yet. what it means is that there are a range of things that need that have been. host: jane arraf, thank you so much for being on this morning. caller: my pleasure, thank you. host: here in the studio to continue the discussion is richard weitz of the hudson institute. welcome. guest: thank you for having me. host: your thoughts on the president's speech yesterday? guest: given his location, it made sense that he spent a lot of time talking about veterans benefits, particularly those that served in iraq. he spent a bit more time on laying out his strategy for afghanistan rather than iraq. there is still uncertainty of how things will the ball after
the u.s. troops leave, particularly in the diplomatic realm. yesterday's talks began with his strategy in afghanistan and how it it fits into dealing with al qaeda. certainly what has been presented is a speech to deal with iraq. host: we do want to show a part of that speech, after he announced a new strategy for iraq and the follow-through. >> shortly after taking office i announce our new strategy for iraq and for a transition to full iraqi responsibility. i made it clear that by august 31, 2010, american combat missions in iraq would end. [applause] that is exactly what we are doing. host: richard weitz, theule.
headline in "the philadelphia inquirer," pullout is on track, forces leaving on schedule." are you in agreement? guest: for the most part. due to the start -- a change in strategy in 2008, we have seen what looks to be a successful transition to pretty much an iraqi military. even after the end of this month there will still be 50,000 troops there. although they are trained as advisers and trainers, they can engage in, if necessary. it looks like what we will see is a series of strikes that i do not think the iraqi forces can prevent, but it will not be a
major threat to the durability of the government and so on. host: we are speaking with richard weitz on the u.s. troop withdrawal in iraq. if you would like to get involved in that conversation, for republicans, 202-737-0001. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. as always you can send us a message through twitter or e- mail. you mentioned terrorist attacks. from your observation, what effect will the president's announcement have? guest: there is a group that called themselves al qaeda in iraq, it has always been a question as to what extent they are actually connected to al qaeda. it looks like around 2008 they were pretty much defeated by the surge.
what they have been doing since are simple terror strikes, they are not a major political force. there is speculation on having seen an uptick recently, with such a lot of casualties. it is hard for me to envision how it would conduct an operation against the united states like we have seen in afghanistan before september 2001. host: in "the philadelphia inquirer," "president obama confirmed that combat troops would leave by the end of august as promised and on schedule as the united states moves to a support role in a country still dealing with violence and a fractured government." the first call for this conversation comes from sarasota, florida.
brian, independent line, go ahead. caller: first-time caller, been trying to get in for my three years. so glad to get through. i am glad that obama is keeping his word on troop withdrawal. i will vote for him again. the only way that he can lose me as a voter is off the main reason i voted for him is the 2% wealthiest americans. those people are just sitting on american jobs. they are not running companies, they are not producing jobs. i see these rich people in sarasota every day. host: we are talking about the u.s. troop withdrawal of iraq. would you like to make a comment or ask a question? caller: i just want to say -- all right. host: let's move on to king mountain, democratic line, jim. caller: i am an old vietnam veteran.
in the reporting of the news, so much is about finding out what is going on with what the government is trying to do, i think that is the biggest problem with what is going on in america today. everyone reporting about being out there on the front line, some things need to remain secret. i think that we need to just report the news. host: your thoughts on the president and the administration laying out their plans this far in advance? guest: it makes sense. some of this is binding in a legal agreement that the u.s. has with iraq that allows forces to stay until the end of next year. unless that changes, they will likely withdraw and the military functions would be on short-term visits or run out of the
diplomatic military section of the embassy. host: jerry, chantilly, welcome. caller: i think that yesterday's speech to the manager of the president talking about afghanistan's so much, he did not want to talk about the draw down because of the comments that were made earlier, talking about the promises that were made that we have not fulfilled in terms of the democratic government there. the people there have a longer view of history there than they do here. over time they have gone in and come out on multiple occasions, regardless of who the president is. in america we have fulfilled the mission without a sustained effort.
host: richard weitz? guest: what the president is confronted with is a series of important issues that are hard to prioritize. a successful transition in iraq is important. but afghanistan, which he spoke about yesterday, is becoming more problematic. the iraqi forces have developed to the point where we think that they can maintain order without a major u.s. troop presence. that is not at all the case in afghanistan. the conference that took place last month, they have pulled back on what they hoped would be the transition in 2014. north korea, iran, a lawyer -- relations with china, he has to figure out where to place our assets. iraq has been a successful strategy so people feel comfortable about him lowering the u.s. military presence. host: drexel, missouri,
independent line, go ahead. caller: is a good idea to pull some of the troops out of iraq, but what if we let some there? in this independent iraqi state, it would be a good idea to leave some of the troops there to provide -- protect them from the theocracies surrounding them. but what is to stop them from attacking iraq like they did israel? if another one pops up, they might feel threatened and decide to attack. .
the ethnic groups. they can be a bit of a buffer. but they are going to make clear that it will take place within the iraqi chain of command. that also goes with any possible basing beyond 2011. it would have to be something the sovereign government of iraq would want to have. there is one reason, they are concerned about iran or some
other country. they might. it depends. the might feel more comfortable without that. we will have to say. host: some numbers from the associated press regarding troop levels in iraq. october, 2007, was a peak with 170,000 troops. now, back down to 70,000 troops. confirmed u.s. deaths -- those numbers from the associated press. caller: this is my first time calling. i am glad the president pull them out of iraq. i am a vietnam veteran. i am with president obama all
the way, pull them out of there. bring them home. host: what d.c. as a difference between the withdrawal of troops from -- what do you see as the difference between the withdrawal of troops in iraq and the withdrawal of troops in vietnam? caller: we would be right back with them now. host: thank you for your call. do you want to comment on that? guest: i would like to thank the veterans who called them for their service. vietnam was not an easy war. there is a parallel. in vietnam, we tried the same strategy of leaving the south vietnamese forces in charge of the country as we withdrew. that failed. the south vietnamese were not able to withstand what had
become a conventional war with the north vietnamese. the u.s. succeeded in defeating the insurgency, but the north vietnamese regular forces intervened and a overwhelmed the south. you do not have the problem in iraq. the intervened and the statement afghanistan. there are ties between the insurgency. host: we have a message via twitter. guest: there are some who leave that. the u.s. will never leave. it is not so much the iraqis and people in neighboring countries. but the united states and iraq have signed an agreement that
the u.s. forces can stay until the end of next year. it has to be something the iraqi government wants to keep. this administration is not eager to leave troops there. they would reconsider, as we have seen in afghanistan. but they will probably pull all of them because they need them elsewhere. host: we heard that five months after the election, the iraqis have not put together a government. how much of that is based on the fact that u.s. forces are still there? or is that something completely different? guest: that might be a factor in that if they were left to their own devices, there would be more of an incentive to compromise, you could argue. the primary problem is that the way the society is divided. often you have people the vote
for kurdish parties. there is a broader group. they appear to have support among shiites. the constitution encourages multi-party coalition's. it has taken a long time to form a government. we have also seen this in europe and the netherlands. host: next up is brian from lorida on our line from democrats. you're on the line. go-ahead, brian. brian? go ahead, sir. caller: yes. host: do you have a question? from move on to anne frank atlantic city, new jersey. you are on the "washington journal." caller: mr. weitz made a good
comment about the war in vietnam. i am a combat veteran. the iraqi war was a tobacco to begin with. going over there. it caused us problems -- the toqi war was a tobdebacle begin with. no matter what obama does, in the end, i think iraq will revert back to its problem-type situation in the middle east. the 50,000 troops stayed behind. it reminds me of germany. we're going to be there forever now. god knows how much it is going to cost. i do not think we will get anything accomplished in the middle east and putting troops on the ground when we could be using intelligence to do our job for us.
guest: thank you for your service. the intelligence is a key. the caller is correct in that one substitute you can use for a large number of troops -- we games supporte a game to ♪ from the troops. the original invasion of iraq was because of faulty intelligence. but we're hopeful things can get better. the wikileak suggest there is uncertainty about that whole region in general. host: we have more from the president's speech yesterday to disabled veterans in atlanta. the headline in "the baltimore sun," we want to show you more
of what he had to say about the new u.s. role. >> we have not seen the end of the american sacrifice in iraq. but make no mistake. our commitment is changing from a military effort led by our troops to a civilian effort led by our diplomats. as we mark the end of four combat mission, a grateful america must pay tribute to all who served there. host: we are talking about u.s. troop withdrawal from iraq with richard weitz from the hudson institute. good morning, jimmy. go ahead. caller: my comment has to do with the violence and iraq. it remains relatively high. it seems it would be to the benefit of those folks who want u.s. troops out of iraq to
moderate the level of violence because continuing the violence gives ammunition to individuals who are opposed to troop withdrawal. could you comment on why they seem to be doing what appears to be counter to their goals, and if their goal is to have u.s. troops out of iraq. guest: that appears to be with the afghan taliban would do, wait out until the foreign troops leave. there are two possible outcomes. one is that the insurgents are concerned that they want to maintain they are still an active force and need to play a role. there is also a conspiracy theory that some of the bombings are due to various iraq factions various they're trying to keep the troops there.
it is a bit hard to tell. it is probable that it might be both forces and acted because insurgents are probably divided by various groups. host: richard weitz is the director for military analysis at the institute. he has been with the hudson institute since 2003. weapons of mass destruction and nonproliferation policies and he is our guest for the next 20 minutes. jefferson, ga.. are we after weapons? i am hearing we are in afghanistan iraq afghanistan for some of the oil and minerals in the ground. is there any truth for that? guest: as far as i am aware, not
so much. there would be no reason to invade or occupied the country to get oil. they are quite happy to sell oil on the open market. afghanistan has newly discovered minerals. it looks like the chinese are taking that. it does not appear to have been a factor from will little i know about the decision to intervene here originally. i did not think it will affect future policy. host: next up is sarah in jefferson, ga. i am sorry, we have joan in buffalo, new york, on our line for independents. tony in daytona, florida. caller: i want to comment on the
same sentiment that the other gentleman was talking about earlier. the intel on the ground would be better, a decision as far as keeping all of those troops in there. we have been in with the people that do not think the way that we think and do not run the country the way we run our country. they are violent people. it is high time we get out of there and we should do the same thing in afghanistan, as well. guest: the president said we are leaving iraq. the intent is to withdraw u.s. troops from afghanistan. the fear is, and people can argue either way, if u.s. troops leave afghanistan without a stable government in place, the
taliban may or may not take control of the country but it will be hard to keep al qaeda out. you have other places, too. we cannot know. history differs. you can learn one experiment and change 1 verbal and run it again. having u.s. troops in, running it, without u.s. troops and seeing the outcome. we have to take an educated guess about the outcome. host: there is an op-ed in "the new york post" -- "will bam lose iraq?" we will take a look of that and more comments from richard weitz. >> officers and
sailors of the uss aabraham lincoln. major operations in iraq have ended. the united states and our allies have prevailed. [cheers] [applause] and now our collation is securing that -- and now out coalition is securing their country. parallels between the speeches? guest: president obama was forthright that there will be continued problems and continued casualties.
i think the administration is being honest to the american people that we may not see the end of our problems there. he devoted more attention to afghanistan because afghanistan will be more of a problem even though u.s. troop levels in iraq is going down, it is increasing in afghanistan. it will probably stay at that high level for awhile. host: we have a message from twitter. your thoughts. guest: i am not sure they are taking troops from iraq and moving them to afghanistan. but that is correct, there are people who voted for the president because they thought he would end both wars. but i think he was clear that although he wanted to and iraq, he did not approve of the
original mission and heath did not think we needed to stay there. the consider afghanistan a good work and they will keep troops in there as long as possible. the caller is correct. the administration has been honest about that and still feel it is a worthwhile policy. host: we continue our conversation with richard weitz from the hudson institute. republican line. caller: first i wanted to say i do not see much of a difference in his foreign policy between our president now and george bush. i voted for bush in 2004. i voted for obama in 2008 because of the war. now i feel this saber rattling with iran. are we drawing down our troops
to make another strategic move in our grand chess game that we play? we really need to get at the root of the problem. it is our foreign policy. we need to get out of art for the engagements. guest: i think the caller is correct. there are continuities. iraq, they continued to draw down. afghanistan, they continue what has taken place under president bush. in iran, they made a sincere effort to reach out with a series of gestures. they offered various compromises. iran -- the election was contested. they are now relying on the
sanctions policy. the europeans have joined suit. that is probably what the bush administration wants, as well. president obama has said military force is still on the table. it is unlikely that will occur because a series of problems. we do not think we could destroy all the nuclear facilities. you might have to do what was done with iraq in 2003. i do not think that the u.s. military or many people are comfortable with another invasion so soon. there are limits on american power. we have to prioritize. the hope is that the sanctions and pressure will induce a change for policy in iran. host: go ahead.
caller: there was mention of only 50 al qaeda in afghanistan at this time. it seems like a lot of energy and effort being put there. i think i remember there was a general jones back in the bush administration who said there were only 500 al qaeda it there, yet we were putting a lot of forces in their, supposedly taking out saddam hussein's regime, but we still tied everything into whatever we were doing as a link between saddam hussein and al qaeda. i am wondering, why isn't the question being asked about what we're focusing amount was on 50
but when the journal said there were 500, we had maximum -- when the general said there were 500, we had maximum forces. i am a vietnam veteran. the reason i think we are still having these wars, we should look at how many generals that we had in the mmilitary and what their responsibilities were. host: we will leave it there. guest: thank you for your service. the problem with al qaeda, we knew al qaeda after 2001. they were a core group of fanatics and were trying to overthrow local governments and decided they would attack the united states. we drove most of them out of iraq, afghanistan. there was a movement with al
qaeda in iraq. it was probably true without. we had the same problem in the cold war. local groups were identified as communists. so become this? maybe they were pro chinese. some may be emulating and we're not sure what their capabilities are in hitting the united states. there may be a small number of al qaeda in afghanistan now, but there are probably a lot across the border in pakistan. the fear was that would go back into afghanistan if the security situation decrees. host: "mission accomplished," obama boasted.
obama it was benefiting from a strategy formed under george bush. this is what mcconnell had to say on the floor of the senate yesterday. >> a strategy, the surge, and the awakening. we had to prevail on many votes for withdrawal and fights over whether or not we would have ongoing combat operations. all of which led to the agreement and the security agreement between the u.s. and iraq to governments, executed in the previous administration, by the way, that outlined the drawdown of forces, the president announced today. the rockies must work through the -- the iraqis must work through that. general petraeus worked to build the security forces and defeat
the taliban. the surge helped create the conditions that resulted between our countries, which took a lot of hard work. some started to not be achieved in 2007. the credit goes to general petraeus, our fighting forces, emboss other crocker -- and possiblambassador crocker. host: the administration take more credit for the success of military operations in iraq then they should? guest: i did not interpret them taking credit. i think he gave credit to the troops. he said he filled his campaign vow which was to reduce the troops below 50,000 by the end
of this month. the president talked about the success of the surge. you can argue -- i think they both deserve credit host:. next up, tennessee -- host: next up, tennessee. caller: richard, can you hear me? ok, look in the camera and tell me, this is the subject i want to talk about. the man in the white house has criticized president bush for everything in the world. now he is taking credit for what president bush negotiated a long time ago with the iraqi government and then he just got up and said he wasn't taking credit.
he is a hypocrite. you know that. richard. trouth, host: go ahead, richard weitz. guest: it is true that president obama was critical of president bush during the campaign and they continued to criticize some of the policies. but to be fair, the current administration has not focused on the bush administration in terms of policy. they are continuing many of the elements of that policy. host: cincinnati, ohio. caller: hello? veronica. how are you this morning? host: just fine. caller: why don't they bring all
the troops home from iraq and afghanistan and pakistan? just bring them all home. i am tired of the killing every day. just bring them all home. withdraw from afghanistan and pakistan. host: thank you for your call, veronica. give us your sense of the grand scheme of this administration as far as pulling the troops out of iraq, but going forward in afghanistan and then pulling the troops out of afghanistan. guest: a very 60,000-foot level, there is a broad strategy that iraq has increased the number of forces under president bush and defeated the insurgency and now allows for a reduction of forces now appeared in afghanistan, it is the same with
increasing the number of u.s. forces to defeat the insurgents and that would create conditions so that you could pull them out. in the broader level, the administration has recognized there are other challenges that the united states faces in this world. at some point, the art disengaging the number of combat forces in -- they are disengaging the number of combat forces iraq and afghanistan. host: galveston, texas. caller: i come from a military background family. my father and his brother served in vietnam. i'm curious on what they are in fear as us pulling out of
afghanistan and iraq right now. these people are such radicals. they do not have their own kids -- they will have their own kids blow themselves up to take out u.s. troops. what will be the probability of these radicals using that as a step in our own back of being able to tell these -- as a stab in our own back of being able to tell their own people that the americans are on the run and we need to hit them when they are down. guest: that is an excellent question. people are struggling with this. we understand there are a lot of people who want to harm americans and others who are based in that region. the reason people attribute -- economic problems. some say it is because of the american presence.
we just do not know what happened. and so the bush administration and the current administration are reluctant to do that. the fear is that you could have a negative resurgence of radicalism in that region that could launch attacks on the united states and other people. host: charles from connecticut on the republican line. caller: i have a question about al qaeda. i am guessing they are one of the main enemies and one of the reasons we were compelled to go over there. my question is, it wasn't al qaeda compromise the mujahedin? and supposedly we helped them back in 1979 so they could
protect their land against the soviet military. is that true? guest: the caller is correct. what happened is during the cold war in 1979, the soviet union after several years of trying to put a government in power, afghanistan found the government lost a lot of support because people rebelled against the policies. they sent in their own forces to try to suppress the insurgency. that failed. we worked with pakistan, china and other countries to supply weapons and build up the insurgents. we saw them as an ally to the soviet union. the soviets withdrew. we dropped the ball. our attention went elsewhere. that left pakistan is in charge.
after civil wars in afghanistan, the taliban arose, aligned with the intelligence service to seize power and tied to al qaeda. this relates to different countries. more radical factions. and then the al qaeda went to afghanistan and took root there and plotted the 9/11 attacks. we did not help al qaeda get established. we work with forces to help the taliban come into power. host: richard weitz, thank you for being on the program this morning. we will be having a discussion with reverend jesse jackson about jobs in the economy. but first this campaign update. >> it is primary day in several
states today. we will get some races. .et's start with michigan let's look at all of the candidates that are running. there are a lot of them, trying to replace jennifer granholm. there are five candidates on the republican side. which are the leading candidate? >> it is uncertain. on the republican side, you have three top candidates. a current congressman, a former ceo of gateway, and the attorney general. there was a poll last week that showed a foot in support towards the former date way ceo, rick gateway ceo.
nly had a two-point leada. on the democrat side, you have the former -- the current state house speaker, in the dylan. he is the more centrist candidate in this race. -- andy dylan. the unions believe they are not favorable to them. the first is running as a more liberal candidate in this contest and has taken a lead in the latest polling out there. a large group of voters are not decided. >> what influence does the tea party have? >> it is interesting. there are so many candidates in this race. is splintered. you have conservative support. -- it is splintered.
one has political experience. newt gingrich has been out there supporting him. you have other figures like the former arkansas of order, mike huckaby, who has signed on with mike cox. we should also say the cox cox ran into a bit of a trip wire because the report came out that he attended a party with strippers at the mayor's house. he said it never happened. guest: let's go want to -- host: let's go want to kansas. guest: no matter which republican emergence, they will most likely succeed senator sam brownback. it has been a litmus test of who is the greater conservative here. both of these candidates have
90% ratings from conservative organizations. both havethey both have a grads from the national rifle association. you have jim demint backing jerry imoran. he has had an 14-point lead. it looks like moran will be victorious. how is this race showing in missouri? guest: you have the congressman whose son was a one-term
governor in the state against the leading democrat, secretary of state who has a long history. her brother is in congress. her father was a popular governor. both of them are expected to emerge unscathed. they have tapped into tea party angst on spending and support for tarp legislation and for earmarks. it will be interesting to see what percentage chop fergusuck ferguson pulls. roy has led throughout the year. it is not a large lead. it is basically five or six
points, but it has been consistent. if the environment was terrible to democrats, carnahan would be in a better position. it has been a tough environment for democrats. in the mid 30's. he is very unpopular right now. that is going to be a toughercarnah for carnahan. she is not from washington. she will be tied to her rubber- stamp. she comes back and call some bail out roy blunt. they have tried to run to the on fiscal issues.unt blunt has a narrow lead. host: any big-name republicans
going for roy blunt? guest: the congressman from missouri was supposed to get out for a roy blunt. you had tea party people that were upset that she supported blunt. she did a call for him. tea party were protesting it saying roy blunt is not physically conservative. there is a bit of a rift there between the right wing, the real conservative base and representative roy blunt. can he pull them into the tent? host: ok, thank you free time. for more information, go to our website, c-span.org. host: rev. jesse jackson joins
us to talk about jobs and the economy. good to see. the senate budget committee will have a hearing under senator kent conrad talking about the status of the u.s. economy. in your opinion, what is the status of the u.s. economy, especially for african-american and other people of color? guest: banks failed us with their greed and lack of oversight. billions of dollars in bailout without any link to lending. the result is well street is celebrating. expect 1 million homes in foreclosure this year. the foreclosures are outdistancing -- when a home is lost, you lose your tax base. you cannot pay teachers, police, and firemen.
the base is so for a jobless recovery. host: 10 geithner had this op-ed in "the new york times." he says the economy has a long way to go before reaching its full potential. large parts continue to strengthen. guest: he is looking top down. i wish you would go to chicago. unemployment is like a whopping the epicenter for adults, maybe 50% for the youth. public transportation has been cut. thousands have been laid off.
you cannot get the work to build the school. they are closing schools. laying off several thousand teachers. closing public housing. this is a top down view. we need the kind of bottom up stimulus host:. we are talking about -- host: we are talking about jobs and the economy. to call loss, 202-737-0001 -- republicans, 202-737-0002 -- democrats, 202-628-0205 -- independents. you can also send us messages using e-mail and twitter. you say that we should give the country eight reason to celebrate. you say illinois faces brutal budget pressures. they are calling for cuts in
schools and universities and programs for the disabled, the elderly, and the pool. there could be a deficit of as much as $13 billion. how did you close the gap between where the governor is in states like illinois and or the secretary of the treasury is, and he is talking about the beginnings of a recovery guest:. the first bailout was significant but not linked to lending, not willing to reinvestment. of the ship is celebrating. mealses don't have three a day in america. families do not have jobs yet. we have a crisis over and over again of the anti-social
reaction. i wish geithner would come to places in chicago where we have a whole streets of boarded-up houses and children are afraid to go to school because of rampant violence. host: what can he do? guest: those banks that misled people close on people, they should have some responsibility to reinvest and to fix those houses and get people back in those houses. people are paying. they cannot pay the adjusted rates. the could stabilize their families. targeted jobs and job-training. often the close apprenticeship programs. health care. recreation. that is a comprehensive plan.
host: our guest is the rev. jesse jackson for the next 30 minutes. our first call comes from arlington, texas caller:. good morning, reverend jackson. good morning to you. with all due respect, i must say i'm disappointed in president obama and all four black leaders because right now no one in the black community and especially this president has decided against african americans by going against the arizona immigration law. this illegal immigration has devastated the african american community. they are putting black people out of work. and you and reverend sharpton are taking the side of people who are breaking the law every day in this country and deprive it black people the right to make illegal living in this country. guest: none of us support
illegal immigration. we support a path to citizenship. we support the law the supreme court just reaffirm. jobs are not being taken from us by anybody. thee -- i would hate to see pitting of blacks against latinos. we are each other's future. we must learn to be bilingual. learn to expand our economy. i think president obama was correct and i support the supreme court decision. just because people speak with ccent. caller: i would like to say a to the caller before me.
reverend jackson, what is in it for you? for you to support the arizona bill and all the anger, you of all people would not want to see the anger -- guest: i do not want to see the anger. we should move from anger to calm resolve. there is growth. everybody wins. i have a moral passion for inclusion. we pull together, blacks, latinos, whites, and native americans, jewish americans fighting for a base. i support this. i work with cesar chavez. in the fields of texas, ohio.
those who pick our tomatoes and grapes and vegetables, those who try to work their way up, they are taxpayers. there also veterans in foreign wars. we would do better not to get sidetracked in our anger against them. host: chris on the independent line from colorado. caller: hello. thank you for taking my phone call this morning. my question relates to the violence. you're talking about illinois. i have not seen a lot of coverage on that. i wonder if he could expand on that. guest: 1000 have been shot in chicago this year,226 have been killed. we focus on the war in iraq and afghanistan. we lost fewer than 6000 soldiers in those wars.
30,000 a year and 100,000 injured. in the face of that, we keep expanding more -- we must continue the ban on assault weapons and stop the flow of guns and drugs and jobs in and jobs out. host: the lack of growth of spending shows the economy ended the second quarter on a weak note. growth will slow further in the second half of the year as high unemployment and renewed troubles in housing weight on the economic recovery. guest: look at the disparity between that assessment and geithner's assessment. we are still losing homes and jobs. teachers are being laid off. classrooms are expanding.
schools are being closed. there is a recovery coming, but forclosing.e i think we need a stimulus part to as being necessary. there must be a part two. the roosevelt model was -- there was a chicken in every pot. there was stronger regulation of banks. it was a stronger fdic and more oversight. the danner group has done a lot gethner own -- the da group has done a lot top-down work. host: welcome to "washington journal." caller: i have a couple of
comments for reverend jackson. you probably will not hear this very often from a conservative, i agree with your assessment that the economy is a lot worse than people think it is. is because of these top-down views. i read a ridiculous article that had the epiphany that job growth is a good measure of economic growth. how long will these economists that figured this out, the two economies, will street and main street. have you read a book called "the $3 trillion war"? guest: i have knocked. -- i have not.
caller: i would like to ask you if you think they have considered possible effects of pulling out of the war's and labeling them somehow as being the cause of our economic woes guest:. we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year iraq and afghanistan. these two wars -- we lost money and lives and honor. they are building up their economies, building roads and bridges and sewers and schools and obstacles. we need the same thing at home. i am all for a robust foreign policy. we seem to be going it alone in
iraq and afghanistan and it is a long way from home. gm is no longer gm because it is 60% owned by the u.s. government. the number one markets for buick in -- in china it is doing. the u.s. is investing in the market. we wrapped up compensation. gm was able to buy -- how can those deny a job and pay for our cause? i am concerned we more input to forces on the -- they seem to be in growing desperation -- desperation. host: democrat line. caller: thank you for all you do. the miss education of america.
the arizona bill. if you left your driver's license at home, you could be arrested and detained until you could prove you are an american citizen. what obama is trying to do and the democrats are to provide a pathway to citizenship to bring these people out of the shadow and make them pay their fine so that employers are deploying people who are illegal immigrants. we have fox news and is bleeding into the mainstream media that the reason that we do not have immigration reform is because the republicans wants an issue to run on. the mainstream media are putting the onus on the people who are causing the problem, the people who are blocking immigration reform. what is a rainbow/push doing?
guest: there is some legitimate anguish and fear about the killings on the border. more mexicans have been killed on the mortar in the drug wars then in afghanistan and iraq combined. much of that is bleeding over into the american cities. the appetite is creating the drug trade traffic. we have linked into predict some is moving over into arizona. we must not leap past due process. we should not profile people by their race and their religion. i think the supreme court was right in saying -- not just to guard the borders but to speed up the process of citizenship affirmation. host: tommy majors has this
message on twitter this morning. guest: in every city, they have cut public transportation money for workers. they passed a bill -- zero money for drivers. only 10% for capital improvement, the buses and trains. you could have new trains but no one to drive them. these are green jobs. so we build more steel, make more still in birmingham and pittsburg and have less highway and you have more efficient transportation. i am convinced that is the wave
of our future. we think of solar, turbines, windmill. that is important. mass transportation. i was in chicago couple of months ago. i had a meeting and the plane was late. it took me to win half-hour's to get from o'hare. i got a train, 25 minutes. looking at all of that contestant on the highway. it says to me the green jobs, we should not be losing green jobs, cutting mass transportation and a time when -- host: maryland. caller: i have a comment and a question. i'm sick and tired of black people being led around.
most black people do not know that martin luther king really was a republican prior to becoming a democrat. he became a democrat with regard to the civil rights movement and john f. kennedy and willing to pass the civil rights bill. i am sick of black people talking about foxed new spirit is the white people who hire them. this is why we have no jobs. your views, reverend sharpton, at one point would you fall behind black people and help us to propel our children and our people into independence. there has to be a point about conservatism among the black community. blacks did not help them. they never have. thank you. guest: dr. king was a
republican. the emancipation proclamation process and the civil war. the progressive wing. democrats were of the stripes of george wallace. in 1932, america hit rock bottom and the come back with jobs and a chicken in every pot. there was a big shift to republicans to democrats. dr. king was a republican. republicans were not as polarized as they are today. it is true that the military was desegregated. we got little luck resolve to some extent. we should devote our interest
and not our fears. host: arizona, linda, republican line. you were "washington journal o." caller: i have a suggestion and a question. i have called in about this before. he takes a that, a program, using their own money and give them $5,000. this is we use the businesses that are driving like in colorado, completely employee-owned. we need to help ourselves. jesse, will you help me? guest: micro-loans given no
access to capital. access to capital and credit is very basic. also, in the creditors do not [unintelligible] people who have homes, have jobs, who are doing the right thing, the fact is that these major banks are targeting people and exploit them. they charge rates. stopping exploitation by stopping banks and fees, yes, we needed the smaller growth and development. we must stop the predators. we're running in this big hole home and bank foreclosures. they're getting a fee on free money. the big time creditors must be stopped. host: your current campaign is
restructured loans do not close on homes. why does that bring to washington, d.c., this week? guest: we will be meeting with the senator harry reid. they lost so much land because of the department of agriculture's behavior. blacks owned 23 million acres of land and now is down to 2 million acres and a now it is because they cannot get seed money. they were driven off of their land. the sum of $1.2 billion for 80,000 farmers. yet the government can find in the money for afghanistan and we cannot pay farmers. we want them paid the money owed to them. they want to farm. they need a way out. restructure the loans, bring
down the principal so people can stay in their house. if the have a lower principal and a longer-term restructured deal, they still have to leave the home instead of these vacant or abandoned homes. the bank cannot use them. there's no future in these vacated homes. it becomes also a magnet for crime and a loss of a tax base. host: back to the phones. little rock, arkansas. welcome to the program. faye? caller: reverend jackson, on one to make a statement and then talk about this. the statement i want to make is that what obama is trying to do is trying to repair the house with the united states. we are having to live, instead of moving out into hotels, we
are living in while the house is being repaired. we have a been moved into one room while this gets fixed. then you move into another one. there are a few leaks, a few bugs that comes through. we may have a little rain dripping for. that is what i think is happening as far as obama trying to correct things. as far as fox, rush limbaugh, hannity, they are all building to incite some kind of race war. i have talked to several people about this. they say, "you should really not say that stuff or listen to that garbage." that is reverse psychology. they are doing everything they can to try and start a race war. what do you think about that? host: thank you for your call. guest: i hope that is not their
motivation. the president seeks to get a comprehensive health will which is called a death bill. then they argue. these are insightful diversionary challenges and are not good for the country. they compare him to hitler. that is not fair. what america needs today, we learned to survive apart and we must learn to live together. we are multiracial, multicultural society. we must seek parity. football, basketball, baseball, we do well. we need the playing field even. the goals are clear. under those conditions, that is the great american dream. we would have real access to health care and jobs and college
and housing. we must and the disparity with this half and half mind which would make us a more perfect union. by the way, on the anniversary of the march in 1963, we will have a march in detroit for uaw and the focus will be on jobs, job training, apprentice ship programs, health care, and the war. that is one really takes us above counter attacking each other. host: decatur, ill., on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: reverend jackson, it is a pleasure to talk to you. i have a comment from central illinois. i know when you are saying. we have 10% unemployment down here. factories are pretty much a
thing of the past. people are afraid to spend money, sir. the people that do have money are afraid to spend it. the people that do not have any money cannot find a job. the only answer i see is extending unemployment benefits but that will come to an end one of these days. we need to get these banks -- back to what you are saying, we need a more friendly tax base to bring more factories in and not ship them out. i do not know how long this will hold up, but what can we do to get the tax base, the banks, and people back to work here? guest: not long ago when president clinton left, there were arguing on how to spend a peace dividend, a robust and growing economy and a fairer tax system. we had the largest -- we had the largest surplus that was ever
known. i remember warren buffett saying that they did not need the tax cuts. it was money they did not want back. they put a huge tax cut on the one hand, lots of oversight, not enforcing regulations, and the wars. the money went back to the wealthy. it went to wars. in the meantime, we have faced real deprivation now. there's no choice now but to reinvest in our economy. only the government can do that. it is their role to invest in growth. when there is growth everyone wins. when they pay their equal share of taxes, on necessary wars must end, we need to give people a reason to live in a reason to grow.
host: headlines in "the new york times," ben bernanke says rising wages will lift spending in a speech he made in charleston, south carolina, yesterday. the u.s. has "a considerable way to go, but rising demand for household and businesses should help to sustain growth," mr. bernanke said. guest: rising wages when people make more, they spend more. it is from the bottom up. that is an absolutely right. they need to make that commitment to invest at the bottom. right now are as a look at and i hear the words coming from the guys in the big offices, they say we're doing better. when you're doing is you're%
interest, you cannot help but do better. -- but when you are doing 0% interest, you cannot help but do better. in addition, they are looking at more homes without modifications the foreclosures. they're looking at the cost of laying off teachers this year. while president obama has done a good thing in chicago, but 5000 people are looking for the 12,000 jobs. we have a long way to go. we go from a peace dividend and a budget surplus to the largest deficit will have never known which has done americans a great disservice. host: curtis on our line for democrats.
caller: reverend jackson, i find it to be an abominable for any leader function at the threshold to suggest a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants when you can clearly see the devastating impact as they are having on legal american citizens or naturalized american citizens. many of these people come here -- i would say our country, to them, and as like a huge sand box. they come and play. when the sand is gone, they gone -- they are gone. your position on this issue, sir, i find unbelievable. guest: we came here enslaved. we did not have legal status. we fought to make this a better country. let me say those workers who
work in those fields to pick the fruit and vegetables that you eat, many of them served in the military on the front lines, they are not why the automotive industry collapsed. they are not why the banks collapsed. they are not why we are in iraq and afghanistan. they are not why we want homes in foreclosure for working people. we should not attack the weakest link. on the positive side, when people can work towards a little citizenship -- arguing about illegals coming north, those who have come here on visas and to have overstayed their visas. they are in universities, the workplace, or they come from canada. haitians were leading the deprivation and were sent back. there is one policy for haitians
trying to come here. there is another policy for cubans to come here. we need a comprehensive and fair immigration policy for word. to not allow your anxiety and fear to fool you into hate. host: our next call from canton, ill., on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: good morning. i feel honored to be able to talk to you. the first point i would like to make is i really do not understand why the black leaders are not behind the deportation or to clean up the immigration. the unemployment rate for black americans and the black youth is leading to high crime. when you add a 13 the 17 million more people to the working world, that will devastate the black community with more unemployment. the second point i would like to
make, i do not understand why the united states government does not put import tariffs on products. if we did this, we could supplement, open up new factories, employing our own people. they pay ridiculous liberates of $10 per week. we could start supporting our own country instead of subsidizing the other foreign countries by having an import. guest: years ago i was working with cesar chavez. the farm workers were about to have an election two weeks from that friday. they said in the mexican workers by the thousands called the "guest workers." the brought them in to undercut the workers working the field for a decent wage. then there was the crisis with
katrina. people in new orleans could not pick up their own houses. they brought in thousands of mexicans, people from latin america, to exploit their need in desperation to take those jobs. they did not take jobs from the blacks that there were given to them by the contractors who were accountable and sent for them. can you imagine a trail of tears again? sending 12 million families across the border? it is unreasonable, unimaginable, unjust, unfair, and on likely. -- unlikely. part of what makes america great and fair is to open up the field to all of us. inclusion leads to growth. when there is growth, everyone
wins. host: 81 to find a more about rev. jackson's new campaign, you can find the information on their web site, www.rainbowpush.org. guest: august 28 we are having a huge uaw, other unions, and churches focusing on a way from the english we feel and the tensions we feel -- from the anguish we feel and the tensions we feel. if we forgive student loan debt, that could free up students who would guarantee jobs, free up that money, for example. we marched around the country, including washington. this transcends our fears about race and put america back to work. host: in addition from getting
information on the web site, can they call you on twitter? guest: yes, of but i will not read back. -- i will not tweet back. caller: good morning, reverend jackson. i need a little time. i have a lot i would like to say. i agree with a call pertaining to this race war. there will probably be a race war. we're looking at the way immigrants and the illegals come into this country. the used to be a time when you could walk on in, but now we have laws as to how people come in to the country. things are being set up now because when obama appointed one of his first supreme court justice and now we're looking at florida? we have the rubio hamas have a
good chance of going into the senate in washington -- who may have a good chance of going into the senate. when you become a senate -- a citizen, you have not only the right to vote and to be informed of, but you have the right to move around the country. obama looking at politics, it would be a good possibility if they're given citizenship that obama will become president threw their support. host: we will leave it there. reverend jackson? guest: we have immigration laws and they must be enforced. enforcing those laws, we must be consistent, not be brutal, and let us not scapegoat our pain. the housing foreclosures that was not because of immigration. the automotive jobs that are now
in china is not because of this. the student loan debt where banks get free money and tried to keep it, that is not because of immigrants. war inrapped in the afghanistan, pakistan not because of immigrants. there are huge pockets of unemployment in these major cities. it is not because immigrants are trying to get here. we should have a pass to citizenship. we should have border patrol. i say do not be misled to fear. do not let fear become head. let us not go down that road. host: on a line for independent s. good morning. caller: i think we need to simplify things by creating a non-resident permits the
requires pictures, fingerprints, require them to pay income taxes, and obey our laws. they could opt in or out of health care or citizens' security. do they could apply for citizenship while they're working. host: that mr. this. how would this non-resident worker part differ from a green card which we already have? caller: it would not much. i do not know what they require if they require fingerprints and a picture. host: i do not know. i am asking you. caller: when someone comes in this country to work, they do not have to become a citizen. what we should do is at least have the picture and fingerprints so we can track them if we have to. guest: what strikes me is this conversation about green cards soldiers.
they come across the border and join our military. this in a front-line position. if they are killed, they get citizenship in the grave. if they survive and are not killed, they go the to the front of the line to get green cards. they are exploited as soldiers. they are exploited as workers. we'll support legalized citizenship. we share to a thousand miles of border. on one side eve had green grass -- on one side of the border we have green grass. our trade policies have an impact on their property. texas, mexico, arizona, let's not create other problems. the idea of saying people who are born here are no longer americans it turns the 14th amendment upside down.
the idea of using americans as an object of our an english, fear, and even hatred is not a good thing -- of arcane bush, fear, and hatred. host: on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: think you for having me. i just wanted to comment. i have to wonder why the intellectual left continually likes to preach about us being a country of laws and then selectively rationalizes to justify any law they seem to disagree with. we either are or we are not a nation of law. i would ask mr. jackson is is ok for someone to come here illegally and break a lot to do it was involved he feels you or i should be able to break every single day? guest: people should not break laws whether they are legal or illegal.
one reason is because no state has the right to make immigration law because it encourages upon the federal domain. -- it encroaches upon the federal domain. people in the new york or oregon border economic laws with canada. people on the southern border chemicals with mexico. it did not start recently. let's resolve this with some calling congressional process. sending more troops to the border, for example, that is one piece of it. many of these workers came because they were sent for. they were employed and they were using cheap labor to undermine organized labor. they are accused of being illegal but they are sent for. when there are guest workers, if you protest a new lease.
you generate revenue, taxes, but you cannot benefit from taxes. that is a state of inhumanity of beneath their dignity and values. host: atlanta, ga., on airline for independents. caller: limit, the woman who called up -- hello? let me comment on the woman who said dr. king was a republican. there is no record on whether he was a republican nor a democrat. you had these people going back to state's writes. the people driving this r fox and the right wingers. we have these right wing conservatives who want you to believe they are patriots. you look at their military service record and they have not served. they are first to support the war in iraq, the wars they would not serve in. they found a way not to serve in vietnam.
they worry about losing their freedom under president obama. they do not have a clue what is like to live in this country. i am an african-american and a veteran. we did this while serving in the military protecting the freedom that they enjoy. i want to mention some of these people. you have people like rush limbaugh, bill o'reilly, glenn beck, dennis miller, ann coulter -- host: we get the point. and is starting to become a commercial for fox. caller: as african-americans, we have to live in this country -- guest: dr. king grew up in a republican household in a time where the lincoln republicans were progressive. george wallace was a democrat.
and was not a partisan matter but it was an interest matter. thurgood marshall and secretary: 5 democrats and republicans at that time could find common ground on like today's polarization. he did choose kennedy over nixon. that was his political leanings at the end of his life. he challenged kennedy just as he voted for him. remember talking about marching on washington and kennedy was reluctant. the national guard was surrounding washington, d.c. they gave a reception. they said they keep for the reception and we need the right to vote.
they said we could not give you the right to vote unilaterally. people like john lewis bed -- bled enough and died enough. the change the culture and the national dialogue. he supported johnson and he chose to march for the right to vote. he was not locked into an ideology. that is why the last great movement of appellation white, blacks, middle america latina as -- the great movement of appalachian whites, blacks, middle american latinos. there are not enough bridges. when is the opposite position of barack obama? we are locked into polarization and it is not good for progress. host: the headline in many of
today's pager -- papers is about ethics and the investigation of rep rangel, waters, and ensign and how that will play in the 2010 midterm elections in november. can i get your thoughts on the current wave of these ethics investigations? guest: i do not know. congressman -- congresswoman waters has integrity. she is believable. this should be handled in a full committee and not the news room. i think congressman rangel is choosing to stand on his position and that is being worked out through due process. congresswoman waters will not take this sleight of her honor. i have a high regard for both of them. byope they'll be judged their record of service which has been a long term. host: md., sam on our line for
democrats. caller: think you for taking my call. -- thank you for taking my call. i hear people talking about the frustration because of the situation with labor competition between african-americans and illegal immigrants. there is some over- simplification going on. there are other industries that have affected like the meatpacking industry, construction. over the last 10-15 years, in the 1980's meat-packing was in -- a unionized shop. today it is overwhelmingly dominated by illegal immigrants. that happened. it is not just to brush away. there is a real competitive competition in certain labor industries. that is not accurate.
there is a multiplier effect. people come from mexico and the land a job is there is an employer willing to break the law and hire them. they tell their friends and they tell of their family. the multiplier effect uses the safe haven with that job to make it an even worse situation so you see them moving into the industry. there is a multiplier effect the changes over the course of several years. guest: i agree with sam. these people are sent for. give me your tired, your poor. for dinner-ng asylum. they're coming from mexico, coming from haiti. -- they are coming for inner- asylum. we sent for them and we hired them. we protected them.
the burden is on the employer. we do not seem to be concerned about latin-american baseball players. they entertain us and make us feel good about ourselves. it makes this idea of a multicultural america and get everyone on common ground. i hope that we will keep fighting for fair immigration law, passed for citizenship, but ultimately passed for full employment. let us stop the anguish and hatred. we must learn a difficult lesson. we must love one another and have mutual respect. host: reverend jackson, thank you for being on "washington journal" today. we will be talking about the health-care law. this is the second in our series on health care laws. we will be talking about the implementation of health-care insurance changes with sandy
praeger, the kansas insurance commissioner, and chairs the national association of insurance commissioners. we will explain all of that in just a few. first, and news update from c- span radio. [no audio] >> a vote is expected by week's and. confirming elena kagan is one of the last pieces of business senators will see to before departing for vacation. the senate starts debate -- well they started at 9:00 a.m. will live on c-span2. richard trumka, head of the afl- cio, is urging union leaders to step up support for democrats in
the november election. the federation plans to spend more than $50 million on elections in 20 states with the emphasis on races in california, illinois, nevada, ohio, and pennsylvania. today could be the day cruise begin the process of shutting off the gulf oil spill for good with a stream of mud and cement. engineers plan to probe the broken boy -- blowout preventer with an oil-like liquid. if it can, the heavy mud comes next. finally, a hearing today on a rollover accidents involving tanker trucks carrying propane, gasoline, and other hazardous materials. there is an average of over 1200 rollovers each year. the ntsb was to know whether the equipment is similar to the stability systems required for cars could help prevent rollovers. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio.
>> a couple of live events to tell you about this morning. on c-span, the senate budget committee looks at the state of the u.s. economy. we hear from a panel of economists at 10:00 a.m. eastern at the same time on c-span3, they look at autism and environmental health research. >> we are not ruling any options in or any options out. >> this month marks the 20th anniversary of the beginning of the first gulf war. look back at the key players that became desert storm online at the c-span video library. it is all free, every program since 1987. watch what you want 21. watch what you want when you want. host: joining us from kansas
city, missouri, is sandy praeger, the kansas insurance commissioner. she is here to talk to us about the implementation of health- care laws regarding insurance. this is part of our week-long series. welcome to the program, ma'am. guest: a pleasure to be with you. host: tell us how the new health care a lot of the facts insurance plans as there. implemented and going forward. guest: the law is divided into several time lines. the initial timeline will really go into effect on september 23, six months after the enactment date. we have been working feverishly with our national association and state regulators across the country to get the early implementation requirements into effect. companies are having to file
plan amendments with their state regulators for things like dependent coverage up to the age of 26 so a child can stay on their parent's plan. the states are implementing high risk pools or the federal government will operate a new high risk pool and in that state. in kansas, we opted to do our own. we have started taking in a moment in that pool. the high-risk pool runs alongside existing high-risk pools that will go away in 2014 when they are no longer needed because of the guaranteed issue and to the individual market. the national association had, i think, 14 committees working on these various implementation issues. the biggest issue right now being must actively discussed and worked on is the medical loss ratio standards. they will go into effect for plan years 2011.
the medical loss ratio is dictated by the new federal law. it is 80% for the individual and small group market and 85% for the large. 80% of the premium dollar must go for what is defined as "medical expenses" and only 20% for administrative costs. 85% for the larger group. that is more than 50 employees. you would think that would be pretty easy. it is a medical expense, it is payment to and it -- it is payment. it is not quite easy. we are finding that out as the committee's have been working on this for several months. things like nurse call lines, are those administrative costs or helping someone manage their chronic condition and there for a medical expense? host: i want to talk about a
couple of different types of insurance reforms coming up in the next year. you touched on one. the establishment of temporary national high risk pools to provide health coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions. for the sake of defining this kind of the insurance reform, what exactly is a high risk and why did they need to be put into pools? guest: people that are trying to buy insurance in the individual market in most states, they do not have guaranteed issue for a rating the ban which would make insurance affordable. if someone has been denied coverage in the individual market or was quoted a rate that was just really high, more than the average in the market, those individuals, if they have been without insurance for the last six months, are eligible for
these new high risk pools being created with federal dollars. our existing high-risk pools are funded three combination of insurance assessments and premiums -- funded through a combination of insurance assessments in the premiums. these new pools are just federal dollars. these are people who do not have any other alternatives. because of their high-risk conditions, there are very high risk costs in medical expenses. host: we will continue our discussion with sandy praeger for the national association of insurance commissioners. if you would like to get involved, give us a call. the numbers are on your screen. you can also send us an e-mail or a message on twitter.
you also mentioned, ms. praeger, about the extension of coverage for adult children up to the age of 26. if i am a parent and a heavy dependence in college, does the child have to be a college or can they still be at home? what is the situation and how long they have to get the program up and running backs guest: the word "independent" can be somewhat misleading. this goes into effect starting september 23. the child can be working, just not offered coverage to the work place, living on their own, can even be married. the spouse is that eligible to stay on the parent's coverage. the parent has to have a health plan that offers dependent coverage for the child to be able to stay on. the word "dependent" can be
misleading. they do not have to be dependent financially, they just have to be offered insurance through the workplace or have no other means. they can stay on their parent proxy plan until age 26. kids are graduating from college, leaving home, and oftentimes they're going into entry-level jobs where insurance probably, in many cases, is not offered. this is one attempt to fill the gap for a specific number of individuals that might otherwise might not have access to coverage. host: our first call comes from chicago, ill., on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: good morning, sandy. i'm calling from chicago. i am very concerned about medicare for seniors regarding the health care given to them
when they go for pap smears. we are told that is every two years. here i am at 78, perfectly healthy, and i just do not understand why they do not get pap smears every year. i think is very, very important. i think you. guest: thank you for the call. the new health care reform along does include many preventive services that have included over -- in the previous programs including an annual physical. i'm not sure whether the goes -- whether the papps mayor goes from two years down to one. -- i am not sure whether the pap smear those from two years down to one. those copays have been dropped.
i know there are some additional benefits from a prevention standpoint. i'm guessing that the pap smear would be one where the benefit will be more generous. host: our next call from west point, nebraska. you are on the washington journal. caller: good morning, sandy. [unintelligible] the stock down obamacare as unconstitutional -- guest: i did not understand the question. caller: did you hear about the virginia judge striking down obamacare as unconstitutional? guest: the judge is allowing it to go forward. he has allowed it to go forward. the judge has accepted the case. and we'll go forward to for some
determination. the determination on the constitutionality on requiring individuals to have coverage is not determined. the case will go forward. both sides will present arguments. that happened yesterday. host: another part of the insurance reform establishes a process for increasing premiums and requires plans to justify increases. who will be reviewing the increase is and how will people find out if they are subject to premiums? guest: the premium review process will stay with state regulators. we are working with hhs because there is a provision in the law where the secretary can determine if the rate is unreasonable. unreasonable has not yet been defined. we are working with hhs.
the first step is giving states their opportunity for a grant to do the technical review and determine whether the capacity for the state is appropriate in terms of judging rates. the states that are prior- approval states determine before the rate goes into the market whether or not they will am -- will not approve it. they can then go into the market if the commissioner or regulator does not argue. we reviewed rates for accuracy. if the plan can demonstrate based on claims experience the rate is needed to stay solvent, it is important we look at the conditions.
we want to keep rates as affordable as possible, but you cannot arbitrarily deny a rate increase and potentially put a plan out of business. they cannot sustain the times process with a rate that is not adequate. going forward, we have made the case that state regulators, if they determine the rate is reasonable, the secretary should accept the determination but it remains to be seen how this process of the conducted going forward. there may be additional requirements on states that may not have a prior approval process in states. they may have to look up prior- approval. they would require a company to wait before they approve the rate specifically before it is used in the market. host: our next call for sand pareger comes from paul in
greenwood, arkansas. go ahead. caller: it could have been real simple, this health-care thing. the obama administration and democrats had not been kowtowed in the fear of putting in the public option and would have had the public option and the medicare by in an age 55, that would have brought down insurance premium costs. guess what? the employers would have been able to hire people with lower premiums. you see what happened here is obama should not have been afraid to be called a "socialist." i will tell you a story here. i am a veteran and i have the best health care. total government debt -- a total government takeover. it costs probably half as much for a patient under the va care as it does out there in the private health-care business.
host: sandy praeger? guest: he is correct. the v.a. health care is a very good and our veterans certainly deserve that. the issue of how legislation is made is not a pretty process as people often say. there are compromises. i think the state markets, at this point in time, there is a great deal of concern and fear of a single national system. our states are so diverse is really delivered on a local basis. the delivery system as local. the cost of the system is pretty much based on local cost and the availability of services.
it is a local issue. there were several versions discussed during the health reform law. congress determine the that retaining what is good in the state-based system was a good idea. keeping state regulators there to be the advocates and protectors was a good idea. but some oversight and changes that are being dictated, we have discussed. we are retaining what is good in the state-based system but putting some improvements in place that will make the health insurance more uniform across the country. host: on our line for republicans in college park, md. caller: our insurance company's going to lose money?
how will they get their money back? are there any benefits for dental? dental benefits seem to be lacking. i heard consumers could save money if we could go across state lines. what about death panels? that is all. guest: i will take the last one first. there are no doubt panels. that was a little bit of a fear mongering that occurred during the debate. the concern about end of life counseling, that was not accurate. it was a provision that was pulled from the final piece of legislation. dental coverage is not included in this new law. that is still an individual option. there were a couple of other questions. host: he mentioned a cross-state
purchases. guest: there is a provision in the new law for states to voluntarily enter into state -- cross-state contracts. the issue about selling across state lines is that states have determined what they want covered in their health insurance. they have specific patient protections they put in their state insurance laws. if you sell across state lines, then which state law prevails? a consumer might be sold the policy that would not have the same protections as the policy in their own home state. that creates a jurisdictional problem, a regulatory problem. we also, as state regulators, are concerned it would be a race to the bottom. a company would go to a state with very few thick. very few patient protection mandate in their state law, get the product approved their, and
try to sell it in another state where the mandates are more extensive and patient protections are more extensive and compete unfairly. it would drive the other companies into a competitive situation that could drive up their costs and level of the plainfield. that is the reason right now we do not have the sale across state lines. some compact states may decide to come together and decide which set of benefits in a group of states will be the general package. that may work. we will see. those are voluntary programs and the secretary would oversee the creation of those compacts. and maybe an option going forward. host:sandy praeger is the chairwoman of the national association of insurance commissioners on the health insurance and managed care committee.
she comes to us live from kansas city, missouri, as does our next caller. on our line for democrats, you are on "washington journal." sarah? caller: hello. can you hear me? i have a comment. all i want to say is i wish people would stop being afraid of this new health care deal that is down there. they need to understand. i worked in the health-care field. i actually see there is a great big difference compared to having health-insurance and not having health insurance. i would appreciate it if people would stop being afraid and at least give it a try. is not perfect, but as time goes by it will be perfect. right now, people need to stop being afraid and at least give
it a try. that is all i have to say. thank you. guest: those are very good comments. host: i wanted to ask you about one more on our list of items for 2010 insurance reform that has to do with limiting the deductibility to $500,000 per applicable individual for health insurance providers. what does that mean exactly? guest: this was an idea that was floated around during the bush administration. right now there is no limit on the kind of -- any health insurance provided by the employer is provided with pre- tax dollars and is not considered income. some of the benefits can be really rich. one of the ways of creating revenue for the new plan would be to limit the value of the policies.
if it goes above the value it is considered part of a person's income and would be taxable. host: foresight's, ill., on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. a couple of comments and a question. my first comment is this. the administration costs and that you are allowing insurance companies to have, when i think about this in the hierarchy that is going to be set up by our national governments to run this, i think the administration costs we are concerned about is going to be minimal to what we will have to spend to try and demonstrate this. the second thing i would like to make a point of, excuse me. i do not think we will come anywhere near the number of uninsured people that are required in good health to balance out this program. i do not think we will come
anywhere near that because the penalty is only $95 for the first year to opt out if you are in good health and you did not want to be a part of it. insurance companies, in order to be able to compete and maintain and survive, they will need everybody. if they do not get everybody, it will go down. thank you for your information. guest: he raises a very good point. and is a concern for our national association that we have voiced. the individual mandate goes into effect in 2014. the concern is if you have the ability to purchase coverage at any time and the penalty, as the caller pointed out, the first year it is only $95. it increases over a several year. to a maximum of six under $95 for individuals.
-- increases over time to $695. the premium could be considerably more than the penalty. we hope to work with congress and with hhs. i think the law will need to be clarified and it will need defined enrollment so people will not wait until they are sick. i think it will happen. as the caller accurately points out, the desire here is to get more people into the insurance marketplace come into that pool, because insurance is all about spreading risk over the largest -- the largest group of people. some of them are sick and need health care services and some of them are not. but the goal is to try and get everyone covered. i think we are going to have to work to make this individual mandate actually accomplish
that. host: if you want more information regarding the national association of insurance commissioners, you can go to their web site at naic .org. houston, texas, on our line for independents. caller: is it ok to deal with the question on prescription drugs? host: sure. caller: dealing with the medicare prescription drug program, the second year clams' when you meet the doughnut hole you will only have to pay 50% of the non-generic drug. my prescriptions have come since i am in the doughnut hole this year, my non-generic drugs have raised the price is considerably over 100%. if i figure the math correctly that means on a and not gaining anything and this is basically a
scam. i wonder what your responses to that. guest: there are improvements to the prescription drug program. it will take until the year 2024 all of them to be implemented for the medicare prescription -- it will take until year 2020 for all of them to be implemented. those people have started receiving checks this year for $250 which is not a lot and it is a start. for people who have a really high prescription drug needs, their prescription drug costs can run $5,000 to $8,000 per year and sometimes higher. we want to gradually close the holes of the genetic it dropped from coverage -- hold so as a do not get dropped from coverage. not get dropped from coverage.